| Author |
|
Jason Scott
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 August 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1167
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 9:50am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
When I was younger, around about the 25th anniversary of Marvel at the end of the 80es, I used to like that Peter Parker had aged out of school and then university, and reckoned that a year in his comic book equated with about 2 years in real time. But now that about the same amount of time has passed again, I'm glad that they didn't continue with that, as it ultimately was untenable. (Unless you're going to reboot everything.) Heck his marriage felt like a step too far for me, in that would be his cue to retire from crime fighting and go play happy families.
Comic books are a unique form of story telling in that they, (barring the comic divisions just folding up) could continue their narratives forever. So I don't really think we should examine the time passing aspect of it too much. As if you do, suspension of disbelief is going out the window. As suddenly you'll be counting how many christmas issues they've been or how many presidents, and it'll just all fall apart when you try to start rationalising everything.
I think just enjoying them for the fun that they are, and not trying to over analyze them is the way to go, in my opinion. That's the way that I look at it now anyway.
Edited by Jason Scott on 31 October 2014 at 9:51am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132364
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 10:48am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I used to like that Peter Parker had aged out of school and then university, and reckoned that a year in his comic book equated with about 2 years in real time.•• One of the worst things to happen to superhero comics was when the fans started doing that math -- started demanding that time be seen to elapse for the characters even if it was only a tiny increment! I've actually seen/heard fans working it out that it would be okay if ten years for us represent only one year for the characters. Completely missing that all important fictional-characters-do-not-age part of the "equation."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 12:07pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I wonder if the same people who claim Spider-Man should age are also in heated debates about where the Simpsons went wrong, and how South Park is so unrealistic because Cartman doesn't have kids of his own yet?
Edited by Brad Krawchuk on 31 October 2014 at 12:07pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 12:39pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
| Pretty much Ditko's main objection to the aging of Peter Parker. |
|
|
What is your source for the assertion that Ditko objected to aging Peter Parker? I've read that the opposite is true. It seems unlikely that Ditko would have plotted and drawn a story in which Peter graduates high school if he was opposed to the idea.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 1:31pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Unlike, say, Superman or Batman, Spider-Man becomes a much
different character if he's allowed to age even a few years. The
Superman in MOS, despite years clearly passing, is still mostly the
same person as the Superman in SUPERMAN 1.
But a 16 yr old is different -- should be! -- than a 20 yr old or a 30 yr old.
Spider-Man becomes less an identifiable teenage hero than a sadsack
immature loser.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Michael Penn
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 12455
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 1:32pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Completely missing that all important fictional-characters-do-not-age part of the "equation."
***
Neither should the main audience: kids! Just always remember that the primary targeted readers should always mostly be kids 8-13, not the SAME aging kids, but always the next crop and the next and the next, and then not-aging the characters is a no-brainer.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4077
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 2:02pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Another place I'd shave a couple of years off of Spidey's age is that although Peter Parker's high school graduation is a fixed event in time, Stan and Steve never officially established his age beyond the fact that Peter was a teenager.
Let's say Peter became Spider-Man around age 15, but graduated high school at age 16. Being two years younger than his classmates could account for some of his difficulty in relating to his peers. College graduation is another fixed point in time, but between nearly flunking out of a few classes, making up extra credits during the summer (or online, now that he would have been a college student in the recent past), it's easy enough to give Peter Parker a bachelor's degree by the time he's 20.
In and out of grad school, changing jobs a few times, married, kid on the way, then magically not-married...that stuff adds up, but through the miracle of comic book time, he can still be a young twenty-something, barely any older than he was during the Lee-Romita era.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 2:07pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Stephen Robinson wrote:
| But a 16 yr old is different -- should be! -- than a 20 yr old or a 30 yr old. Spider-Man becomes less an identifiable teenage hero than a sadsack immature loser. |
|
|
Indeed. In his final Spider-Man stories, Ditko seems to have been moving in the direction of making Peter more confident and assertive and less self-doubting and mistake-prone. I don't think he was against the idea of Peter aging, but it seems that he would have been against the idea of aging Peter while having him remain a self-doubting loser.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4077
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 2:17pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
How much of a loser has he ever been, really? He dwells on his bad luck (including the fact that most of the people he meets either become super-villains or run afoul of super-villains) and relationship problems, but all of his financial problems stem from the fact that he's fully committed to being Spider-Man, and every other opportunity takes a back seat to that. He's not a millionaire, but he manages to get by, and he's doing exactly what he wants to do with his life.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4548
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 2:35pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
"Loser" may be the wrong word, but he's someone that's plagued by self-doubt and self-recrimination, and (if he's in his late 20s) he's certainly an underachiever in the realm of career. Those seem to be the elements that Ditko was wanting to dial back as he aged Peter into adulthood.
And I don't know that it can be argued that he's "doing exactly what he wants to do with his life." He continues to be Spider-Man as much out of a sense of responsibility as out of a sense of enjoyment or desire.
Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 31 October 2014 at 2:42pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Bill Guerra
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 March 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1067
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 3:46pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I remember when Spider-Man unmasked during the Civil War story, he claimed he got his powers 15 years ago, when he was 15. That would make him 30 (obviously). Now he's lost two years?
I've never had a problem with comic book characters being timeless. In fact, I prefer them that way! They don't need to age with me; in fact, I don't want them to!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kip Lewis
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 March 2011
Posts: 2880
|
| Posted: 31 October 2014 at 3:47pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I started reading SUPERMAN when I was 9 in
1975 and he immediately became my
favorite. I remember being very surprised
when I first read that he was supposed to
be 29. He looked 40, acted 40, and I
thought he WAS 40--and I was fine with
that! In fact, when I read he was 29, I
remember thinking it was a typo and they
meant 39. (Yeah, he could be 39.)
.........
Same here. Superman, Batman, Reed,
Ben, Flash, Green Lantern were all in
their mid-thirties and older. Maybe it
was because my Dad was in his thirties
when I started reading, that made 30s and
older adulthood.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
